![]() | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
It seems that User:KWW has forgotten to leave a block notice, with diff(s) and an explanation of why he thinks Ironholds / OKeyes (WMF)'s IRC suggestion of burning me alive (on Wikipedia's IRC channel)
is hunkey dorey, particularly for WMF employee and Wikipedia administrator Oliver Keyes. Does WMF Director Sue Gardner know about Ironholds's use of WMF's Wikipedia channels (IRC)? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is that a good block, if that IRC log is accurate? Black Kite ( talk) 23:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I have unblocked. Yes, Kiefer Wolfowitz's comment was unacceptable on its own, and repetition of this or similar comments, even when provoked, should result in new blocks. But considering the circumstances, with a functionary making an extremely inappropriate "joke" (if one can call it that) on a channel where Kiefer Wolfowitz has no means to respond, a "tit-for-tat" response, while very ill-considered, is also understandable. The fact that thus far, Kiefer Wolfowitz has received a 3 month block while User:Ironholds hasn't even received a warning (even if his remark was technically, wiki-lawyerishly off-wiki, it is still a location where he acts in function, not some off-wiki personal discussion), is a guarantee that this block will not have the desired effect at all, and will only increase the feelings of unequal treatment of admins (or other functionaries) vs. non-admins.
Kiefer Wolfowitz, please, if something like this happens again, don't lash out, just go to some noticeboard and make a calm and civil complaint there. That will at least have a chance that the result will be the reverse of what happened now. Fram ( talk) 12:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Offsite comments and personal attacks and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 23:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
17 July 2013
24 July 2013
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Are open, honest, refreshingly direct, very funny, and crucially, consistent. They are trying to grind you down. Stick to your guns. Ceoil ( talk) 10:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't that fall under a task force of WP:WikiProject Pornography? WP:WikiProject Pornography/Masturbation work group. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Demographics of Wikipedia editors: Minors, especially neurologically disabled boysKiefer, I don't particularly want to join the IRC/Arsten discussion just to ask you a couple of questions, so coming here seemed easier and more direct. Do you have anything to back up your assertions that the median age of editors is 17 and that "many editors have neurological or social disabilities"? The second asssertion is a bit vaguer (what does "many" mean and how do we define neurological and social disabilities), but I'd still like to know what you base the claims on. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
|
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello Kiefer. As you might know, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement as soon as you can. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 21 21:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
|
I don't want to add more text, given the previous complaints. I plan to see which members of the WMF Board have accounts on English Wikipedia, and also alert them of the IRC discussion, as I did with Wales and Gardner. I am uncertain about the liability of Arbcom members in cases of misfeasance or malfeasance. My experience of non-profit boards in other states leads me to believe that individual board members are individually liable in such cases. I would not want to be liable for failing to implement the steps of the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts on child protection, with years of notices that there were problems on Wikipedia. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Then again, I feel I'm the wrong person to discuss the issue, because I have already made abundantly clear to my fellow arbs that I will never get involved in child protection issues because of liability concerns and general qualms (we are a bunch of dedicated people who try to do what's best for the encyclopaedia, but we lack both proper training and resources to deal with such investigations). My only involvement in the topic area has been to push for the foundation to take over. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Email via WMF |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Administrator Nick reported that "on IRC ... administrators (are) being harassed over the refusal to revision delete KW's initial comment ... and there has been various attempts to influence various people to vote for an indefinite block. Nobody has named the administrators who were organizing this campaign. Worse, no administrator declared that they had read about my blocking discussion at IRC. Nobody has asserted that this stealth canvassing was isolated.
How surprising that all of ArbCom want this section hidden.
For Wikipedia editors, the percentage of 12-17 year olds was guesstimated to be 13%; regardless of age, many editors have neurological disorders or social impairments.
Despite the high participation of vulnerable editors, WMF and English Wikipedia lack serious standards for child-protection; in particular, neither complies with the minimum requirements of the United States Child Online Privacy and Protection Act (COPPA) and the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which ban participation at social-networking sites by children under 13 and require parental approval for other children. Neither organization meets the benchmark set by the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts.
ArbCom has already communicated to Sue Gardner its concern about being overwhelmed with c. 20 cases of child protection each year. And these are cases more severe than cases that have been ignored, because of the toothless child-protection policy of Wikipedia:
Such editors' on-Wiki actions violate the child-protection codes of the Scouts and other responsible organizations, but not WMF and Wikipedia. What happens on WMF/Wikipedia's IRC, particularly in WMF/WP IRC chat-rooms?
Do ArbCom members agree to pay for civil and criminal legal-costs related to IRC from their own pockets, and so agree to refuse WMF funds or legal council?
If my memory is correct, all the AUSC "community members" (and even runner-up TParis) are regular IRC participants, and I have trouble recalling any time where AUSC members tried to raise standards. Indeed Guerrillo's response to Tim Riley's question about using bots to mass-create articles was worse than Slughorn's answer to Tom Riddle's question about Horcruxes.
IRC has a disproportionate influence on ArbCom.
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer, there is no need for comments like this, it is an allegation against a non-party and so is not permitted on case pages. If you continue to breach the requirments listed in the notice I will restrict your participation in the case and/or you may be blocked. If you comply with the conditions listed in the notice there won't be a problem. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
...why is it linked to from Wikipedia space and participation used for RFA worthiness? More Kirk, less Spock.
And actually the "seekret" admin IRC (not linked any more because of past scandals, but very frequented) is even spookier than giving something sanction.
TCO ( talk) 20:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, and not that you give a shit what I think. But, I think you are busting IH's chops too much. I would just bury the hatchet and put him on your ignore list (this forum has one, right?)
He's got some strange behaviors at times, but he's not that different from you or me in some ways. Writes content. Let's it lose verbally. And it was actually pretty deft to think of the lighter remark that fast.
Just make sure you are not playing the victim too hard. People do that a lot here.
TCO ( talk) 20:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes. And I didn't take it seriously. I have no wish to protect him and have sparred with him, so if I were just a Wiki game player who wants to manipulate the moderation system to get foes vanquished would just be happy someone was getting fucket at Arbcom (or even losing his job). And I knew you would not agree with me...but it's my Bayesian gestalt. Feel free to preserve your opinion on the remarks, I know you are pretty different than me. Just make sure some time to step back and think meta. (You can still feel same on IH, just want the split-second self-reflection in addition [this is not an x-y equation, it's more like third semester calc with z's and w's). 21:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to be a total meddling diplomat and post on both of y'all's pages that I think you should each apologize (directly and unreservedly), that you should avoid each other, and that you each write good stuff. TCO ( talk) 21:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kiefer, I'm not jumping up and down or accusing you of anything, just a quick and hopefully simple question: What is the relevance of this to the case? It might be that I'm missing something (apart from Mark being the filing party) so I thought I'd check with you. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oliver Keyes ( Ironholds / Okeyes(WMF) ) is abusive and mendacious even in his role as "community liason" with WMF.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Remind KW to use an irony fontHi Kiefer. I was wondering whether I can be of assistance to with regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tiptoety#Copyright_infringement. Could you explain to me what the issue is? Many Thanks Seddon talk 17:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
@ Drmies:
I want to purchase sniper diapers, stockpiling them for my older age, where they will have more virility than Depends undergarments, I'll wager. (Although, the improvements in diapers fill me with hope for humanity. I could go on for hours about the wonders of diapers from Pampers, Huggies, and ICA!) Our user fee for day care is substantially less, so much so, that I would be embarrassed to tell you. :D I don't know whether it's good to go into the philosophy of science. Developing statistical methods and concepts seems to be the best route towards understanding and advancing science. (In Sweden, too many social scientists want to talk about only issues related to Karl Popper....) I've never regretted time I've spent studying logic. Logic, lattice theory, and linear algebra (real and complex fields) have the biggest bang for the buck! :) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
WMF CEO Sue Gardner ( talk · contribs) jokes about pinning a female employee up against a wall, the way "Ironholds like it" [1]
- [10:10am] <sgardner>: Thehelpfulone: we could ask Kat, right now :-)
- [10:10am] <Thehelpfulone>: indeed, mindspillage what do you do?
- [10:10am] <sgardner>: (Pinning her up against the wall, as Ironholds likes :-)
Are other editors proud of WMF's leadership? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi KW. Regarding [2] - you are right to push for this. Arbcom do hold secret evidence pages from time to time, and I have on wiki and off wiki evidence where Arbcom members have both denied and confirmed this. (refactored comments) Pedro : Chat 20:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
(UTC)
Quoted by Peter Damian ( talk · contribs) from WP:IRC's channel #wikipedia-en (24 November 2011, or 20111124):
- 101 [17:14] * tommorris wonders if we could tempt the really fucking perverted by offering a premium Jimmy Wales RealDoll.
- 106 [17:15] <Ironholds> tommorris: we could have a Peter Damian one!
- 107 [17:15] <Ironholds> as anatomically vacant as a ken doll
- 108 [17:15] <tommorris> Ironholds: you have to pay extra for the shemale option
- 109 [17:15] <Ironholds> "punching him in the face feels like punching the real thing!"
This led to a discussion on the talk page of Jimbo Wales:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Jimbo, today I happened to read this. As you see a Wikipedia administrator, and a member of the Wikimedia OTRS team User:Tom Morris "wonders if we could tempt the really fucking perverted by offering a premium Jimmy Wales Real Doll". So his wondering made me to wonder, if it safe to use OTRS. I mean do you believe that the members of the Wikimedia OTRS team are responsible enough to be trusted with people's personal information? Thanks. 76.126.140.123 ( talk) 03:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Fuck it, KW, you went down swinging. Passive resistance or a measured defense would have served you better than dropping trou and shaking your booty at ArbCom, but it was either going to be a lynch mob or a judicial lynching at a certain point so I guess it doesn't matter that much in the long run. Remember not to edit around the ban, that's cause for permanent immolation in Alice's Wonderland, whereas even certifiable dickwads have been restored to full status if they patiently wait out the calendar and then genuflect to the priesthood... The alternative, of course, is a full throttle, no holds barred war on WP fought from the Island of Lost Souls off-wiki. That's more to your temperament but would be a great loss to the encyclopedia, in my view. I hope you'll hang in there and give it another spin down the road. See ya at WPO. Carrite ( talk) 23:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
This awful city—it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children.
— Walter Kovacs, Rorschach's journal, October 12th 1985.
There is good and there is evil, and evil must be punished. Even in the face of Armageddon I shall not compromise in this. But there are so many deserving of retribution ... and there is so little time.
— Walter Kovacs, October 13th
Kiefer, your most recent submission is precisely the sort of thing that can't be submitted as public evidence. If you have concerns of that nature, you must communicate them privately to the committee. Defaming other people – even editors and even by insinuation – could draw lots of trouble to you and Wikipedia. We (the arbitrators) have opened a private discussion about your recent submission, and you must not make any similar such evidence submissions in the future. Thank you, AGK [•] 23:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I saw the section you added to the talk pages of the List of Wikipedia controversies and Wikimedia Foundation articles. Are you somehow suggesting that the link be added to those articles? That would not be appropriate in my opinion and if you are just trying to get people to read the blog post then I think it is even less appropriate. Should other news sources pick up the information in Dan's blog then that would be another matter. Dan may be a journalist and his blog may be attached to the Christian Science Monitor but that doesn't change the fact that he has strong personal opinions regarding this site and is fairly close to matters concerning this site as a current contributor.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
For edit warring on
Wikipediocracy, I have just blocked you for 31 hours. If you want to appeal this block, please use the {{
unblock}}
template.
Salvio
Let's talk about it!
13:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
This is in contrast to something comparing something with /opinion/ in it from CNN to an article, or a blogs.cnn.com blog. Bottom line, I see absolutely no indication this is a blog/opinion piece, but every indication it is actually an article that has been subject to the organization's full oversight. However, I tend to define "blog" as 'not oversighted by the organization'.. Regardless, your block was horribly one sided. ~ Charmlet -talk- 15:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chinese name | |||||||
Traditional Chinese | 批鬥大會 | ||||||
Simplified Chinese | 批斗大会 | ||||||
| |||||||
Tibetan name | |||||||
Tibetan | thamzing | ||||||
|
You have previously been warned about making allegations against non-parties, I gave some leeway to allow you to more easily rebut the evidence presented by non-parties however
this comment along is too far. Whether it is material to the case or not is debatable (one which I'm not going to have with you), however it is unsupported by evidence; in fact I can't see how you have even try and justify Demiurge1000 given the evidence already submitted. Given that you have been warned about this and warning(s) haven't achieved their intended goal, you are banned from all pages related to the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case until 12:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC), this includes any page beginning with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds or Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds. Failure to comply with this restriction will further sanctions such as a block or extension of the restriction. If you wish to appeal this sanction you may by sending an email with your reasoning to the
Clerks-l mailing list or ArbCom-en-b (arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org) mailing list.
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
11:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
For some time not just Worm That Turned and Newyorkbrad but the also the rest of Arbcom has had links about the on- and off-Wiki pursuits of one of the "non-participants", who somehow is still participating in this case. Why is he not blocked?
The usual rules of ArbCom require that all parties to a conflict are involved. They removed even Mark Arsten, the filer of the case, against another of their rules. Then they allow Worm That Turn and Demiurge1000 to continue the years-long campaign against me, not discussing the "dispute with Ironholds" but dredging up their old complaints from 2011, while I'm not allowed to discuss their behavior.
They are dishonest as a committee, and I have yet to see an honest member amongst them, stating an objection to any of the authoritarianism.
And all of them act like Leninists, with their party-line and no-disagreements in public. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 14:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Hi, thanks for the revert. Is it normal for the workshop being closed without any template put up (or am I blind and missing it)? I don't really have much experience with arbcom cases. Snowolf How can I help? 20:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I've blocked your account for 48 hours, because of this comment. From my perspective, you are making an entirely unacceptable attack on the Arbitration Committee. PhilKnight ( talk) 15:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
"You, slave, will be torn apart by horses, to the plaudits of the troops and the amusement of the children." |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Former arbitrator PhilKnight is another administrator who doesn't know how to use his block button. My block is expired, but Knight snafued the IP-block. Please block Knight for the hours he wrongly blocked me.
Accept reason:
Autoblock cleared. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 18:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Reaper Eternal: Thank you very much! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
[6]. Volunteer Marek 04:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Fantastic. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 07:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC) |
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I note you're no longer on break, but retired. None of it seems to slow you down much. Bishonen | talk 20:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
It's sad when a discussion of freedom of speech has the picture of the authoritarian justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., apologist for the federal state's silencing of paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights ( Schenk v. United States) and forced sterilization.
Just in case you didn't see it, I replied to your comment about Oliver Wendell Holmes on the Signpost page. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
For the rational study of the law the blackletter man may be the man of the present, but the man of the future is the man of statistics and the master of economics.
— Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., " The Path of the Law" 10 Harvard Law Review 457 (1897)
George Anastaplo is, like C. A. Patrides was, an interesting Greek-American intellectual (who also served in WWII). Other editors may wish to help write an article.
Anastaplo argued the case himself before the U.S. Supreme Court, losing the case but being praised in the dissent by Justice Hugo Black.
The first amendment and "The Right of Revolution"The effect of the Court's 'balancing' here is that any State may now reject an applicant for admission to the Bar if he believes in the Declaration of Independence as strongly as Anastaplo and if he is willing to sacrifice his career and his means of livelihood in defense of the freedoms of the First Amendment. But the men who founded this country and wrote our Bill of Rights were strangers neither to a belief in the 'right of revolution' nor to the urgency of the need to be free from the control of government with regard to political beliefs and associations. Thomas Jefferson was not disclaiming a belief in the 'right of revolution' when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. And Patrick Henry was certainly not disclaiming such a belief when he declared in impassioned words that have come on down through the years: 'Give me liberty or give me death.' This country's freedom was won by men who, whether they believed in it or not, certainly practiced revolution in the Revolutionary War.
Since the beginning of history there have been governments that have engaged in practices against the people so bad, so cruel, so unjust and so destructive of the individual dignity of men and women that the 'right of revolution' was all the people had left to free themselves. As simple illustrations, one government almost 2,000 years ago burned Christians upon fiery crosses and another government, during this very century, burned Jews in crematories. I venture the suggestion that there are countless multitudes in this country, and all over the world, who would join Anastaplo's belief in the right of the people to resist by force tyrranical governments like those.
In saying what I have, it is to be borne in mind that Anastaplo has not indicated, even remotely, a belief that this country is an oppressive one in which the 'right of revolution' should be exercised. Quite the contrary,
the entire course of his life, as disclosed by the record, has been one of devotion and service to his country-first, in his willingness to defend its security at the risk of his own life in time of war and, later, in his willingness to defend its freedoms at the risk of his professional career in time of peace. The one and only time in which he has come into conflict with the Government is when he refused to answer the questions put to him by the Committee about his beliefs and associations. And I think the record clearly shows that conflict resulted, not from any fear on Anastaplo's part to divulge his own political activities, but from a sincere, and in my judgment correct, conviction that the preservation of this country's freedom depends upon adherence to our Bill of Rights. The very most that can fairly be said against Anastaplo's position in this entire matter is that he took too much of the responsibility of preserving that freedom upon himself.
This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that Anastaplo has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows, not only that Anastaplo has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost. It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law-men like Malsherbes, who, at the cost of his own life and the lives of his family, sprang unafraid to the defense of Louis XVI against the fanatical leaders of the Revolutionary government of France---men like Charles Evans Hughes, Sr., later Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, who stood up for the constitutional rights of socialists to be socialists and public officials despite the threats and clamorous protests of self-proclaimed superpatriots---men like Charles Evans Hughes, Jr., and John W. Davis, who, while against everything for which the Communists stood, strongly advised the Congress in 1948 that it would be unconstitutional to pass the law then proposed to outlaw the Communist Party---men like Lord Erskine, James Otis, Clarence Darrow, and the multitude of others who have dared to speak in defense of causes and clients without regard to personal danger to themselves. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.
But that is the present trend, not only in the legal profession but in almost every walk of life. Too many men are being driven to become government-fearing and time-serving because the Government is being permitted to strike out at those who are fearless enough to think as they please and say what they think. This trend must be halted if we are to keep faith with the Founders of our Nation and pass on to future generations of Americans the great heritage of freedom which they sacrificed so much to leave to us. The choice is clear to me. If we are to pass on that great heritage of freedom, we must return to the original language of the Bill of Rights. We must not be afraid to be free. [1]
- ^ "In re George ANASTAPLO, Petitioner". Open Jurist.
(Footnotes removed)
Justice Black's dissent In re Anastaplo would "immortalize Anastaplo", said Justice Brennan upon reading it. Black's dissent was read at Black's funeral, by his instructions.
I guess we can all see the
writing on the wall by now. I know your complaints regarding certain problems were made in good faith (even though I believe some of them to be flat-out wrong). Thanks for all your work on various articles and for keeping attempting to keep a lot of complete nonsense and silliness off Wikipedia. I wish you the best in your life off Wikipedia, although I'm pretty certain we may occasionally notice each other on Wikipediocracy. (I do have an account there, although I virtually never post comments.) Good luck.
Reaper Eternal (
talk)
21:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
"Come out and take it, you dirty, yellow-bellied rat, or I'll give it to you through the door!". So long, KW, and thanks for all the humour, fireworks, honesty and wit. Don't worry, it's not the end, it's just light and the end of your tunnel. Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Good Night, and Good Luck seems doubly appropriate. December will be interesting this year, not just because Santa Claus puts in an appearance. Nick ( talk) 20:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC) (added a few days ago without signature)I pray you to believe what I have said.... I have reported what I saw and heard, but only part of it. For most of it I have no words. If I've offended you by this rather mild account ..., I'm not in the least sorry.
— Edward R. Murrow, Report from Buchenwald
Although we've had our differences and battles, I never considered myself an enemy of yours.
I hope you have a great time off Wikipedia. Good luck and ¡hasta pronto! —
ΛΧΣ
21
01:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
You fought the law, and the law won. - but if you're an admin then this remake of that old song is more appropriate: [8]. The law is for little people. Volunteer Marek 01:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I am heartened by the greetings and good will messages from friends, colleagues, and the loyal opposition (of the loyal opposition). However, already Newyorkbrad ( talk · contribs) has been chastised for discussing his expansion plans for articles on American law with me:
"I don't quite understand why you're having a discussion with KW on his talk page. Talk pages are provided to editors to help facilitate their editing, and a certain amount of general conversation and so on is not a problem, but Wikipedia is not a forum and, in any case, KW is no longer an editor. Since he is banned, he has no use for his talk page, since he cannot ask for an unblock using it, but must go through BASC or ArbCom to be reinstated."
and I feel that I should warn others to stop writing here, lest they also be accused of consorting with a non-editor (or non-editor per WP:MOS). I already should have repeated the instructions to his friends given by Egon Balas before he had his public denunciation as an enemy of the Communist paradise of Romania (after which he would develop rickets from serving two years of solitary confinement in a dark cell):
Please protect yourself from recriminations and accusations of disloyalty by simply repeating the official accusations against me. You don't need to add new accusations. I will know about your sympathies and not have to worry about your fate. (Will to Freedom, from memory)
Moral: Fall in line and conform with shunning. (Reader's of Balas's autobiography may agree that my being banned is better than my being beaten on the bottom of the feet with a rubber hose.) Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In two discussions
WP administrators display devotion to the quality of articles (on music, mathematics, civil liberties and rights---to mention a few of the topics discussed on this talkpage since ArbCom banned me).... |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Seeing is believing. (The discussion at Jimbo Wales's talk page is something....) Reading WP discussions lately gives me greater respect for the healthy emotional life and tolerance in e.g.
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 18:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Wikiproject Editor RetentionThere were two discussions of my retirement ( wow) and banning ( permalink), which even after reading need not be believed. (I restrain myself from noting the performance of one administrator by name). Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Sock-Puppet Investigation"Aren't administrators supposed to read about SPI policy before filing claims? This may be the worst SPI filing ever. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 18:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Would somebody kindly remove me from the subscribers listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ David Eppstein: For Olof Hanner, these references may be useful (and I am unable to add them): I thought that Grenander named Hanner as part of his time-series group (but I didn't see anything when I just checked)
and indeed Hans Radstrom's article already has this footnote:
Here is a more complete version, which I created from scratch (!):
I think that Hanner's work on intersection numbers is discussed in
Perhaps Michael A. E. Dummett discusses his books on Tarot decks...? Best regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Your ban is unwarranted from what I can tell from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Evidence. I did not add any material to that page for a reason: IMO there was absolutely no evidence of misconduct on Wikipedia, on either your or Ironhold's part. For their part, ArbCom again brings shame and disrepute onto the projects via their unreasonable actions. That said, please feel free to post edits to my sandbox, preferably on the English Wikipedia sandbox but any other as needed (it may take a while for me to notice though), for inclusion in the English Wikipedia, per WP:PROXYING. Int21h ( talk) 17:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
My watchlist contains only this page now, but I do get some notifications on articles I've written, when somebody reverts an edit of mine.
Perhaps Dr. Blofeld ( talk · contribs) might fix an article (following Eric Corbett's fixing Open C tuning:
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
![]() Congratulations to Eric Corbett ( talk · contribs) and Parrot of Doom ( talk · contribs) for their latest great article, Malkin Tower. Related thanks to Nikkimaria ( talk · contribs), SandyGeorgia ( talk · contribs), Dennis Brown ( talk · contribs), Drmies ( talk · contribs), and the saintly Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs) for trying to preserve a refuge of sanity and quality at Wikipedia, outside of the mathematics project. Your intelligence and bravery reminds me of Israel's holding out as the bastion of humanity in World War Z, until it is overrun by zombies, which also brought tears to my eyes. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC) But today's OR, soapboxing, NPA violations, and IDHT at the talk page may be worse than yesterday's shennanigans. Kudos again to many of the above and to Nick ( talk · contribs) for trying to get the talk-page discussion to focus on the reliable sources. KW 21:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
"What are you waiting for? Do it.... Do it!"
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3) For numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies, Kiefer.Wolfowitz is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
For the Arbitration Committee,
-
Penwhale |
dance in the air and
follow his steps
23:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The Christian Science Monitor reported on the case:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Further discussions of this case occur at Wikipediocracy, especially in forums devoted to governance ("Down with Ironholds", sic.) and general discussion (Child protection policy). Appealing to consensus and responding to the concerns of
I removed the direct links to those discussions.
Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
tuning
Thank you for quality articles on
tuning and
mathematicians, even
fictitious ones, for tuned comments to well-wishers, and for striving for serenity when you are "right but others are not ready to listen", - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
A year ago, you were the 220th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style. Stay tuned -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Two years ago, you were the 220th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, - you are also included in the group I sing praises for, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Remember comparing voters' guides for arbitration? - Here are the answers to my question, summary: no foul, play on. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | |
spirale of justice |
Four years ago, you were recipient no. 220 of Precious, a prize of QAI! - An article about justice is TFA, DYK? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Seven years, and missed -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I hope you will consider mailing me, at some future point. Charles Matthews ( talk) 10:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I have recently become aware of your existence through reading portion of a newsletter from Wikipedia talking about banning users and revealing inappropriate behavior by some of Wikipedia's foundation employees in form of expression of violent and/or misogynistic and threatening thought-crime views (Signpost, iirc?) and wanted to ask you some questions that I've pondered during the periods in which I've actively contributed to articles on topics that were of personal interest to me (none of which involve child predation, for example). I hope you will consider to reply to me if you are permitted to do so while blocked? Why do you think people invest/waste/spend so much time and energy creating "drama" w/in what is ostensibly considered the Wikipedia "community", rather than simply work on expanding and improving the online encyclopedia by creating new articles on noteworthy subjects and enhancing those articles that already exist? What motivated you personally to engage and interact with drama-centric editors and administrators who were/are focused more on Wikipedia "community" than Wikipedia's content? Would you describe the actions that ultimately resulted in your questionable 'banning' as self-destructive, or principled? Did you self-sabotage b/c you wanted to spend more time with your family and less time w/ Wikipedia, but knew you'd need an external force to shift your focus (b/c otherwise you'd've just continued expending the same time/energy resources on Wikipedia, ongoing)? Finally, how can an editor avoid having any contact with Wikipedia drama-whores but still engage in processes like nominating articles for Featured-article status and responding to objections from reviewers who might be less interested in the actual content than in exercising whatever virtual "power" they think they've accumulated in the world of the online encyclopedia? Thank you for your time. Az x2 19:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Wikipediocracy today posted a blog on my being blocked after I had raised concerns about child protection ( already linked from User talk:Jimbo Wales; permalink).
In a discussion on his user page, Jimbo Wales ( talk · contribs) stated the falsehood that WP:Child protection is strictly enforced [14], which is easily refuted.
Arbcom lacks the time and training to handle the 20+ cases yearly of child predators, according to arbitrator Worm That Turned ( talk · contribs), who appealed to WMF Director Sue Gardner ( talk · contribs) for help. She has failed to provide any concrete help to ArbCom, although Sue Gardner did appoint a committee with long-time arbitrators Newyorkbrad ( talk · contribs) and Risker ( talk · contribs) to liaise with WMF:Legal.
Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Update: No news is bad news Jimbo Wales has still failed to acknowledge the email (requested in August) with evidence about off-Wiki adult-child behavior---failing to meet the standard of ArbCom's Roger Davies ( talk · contribs), who at least acknowledged receipt (on behalf of the committee). At least ArbCom acknowledged publicly that it was incompetent to handle the existing Child-Protection policy when it asked Sue Gardner for help. Why does WMF continue to beg for donations when it ignores concerns about child safety? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Peter Damian wrote his blog about my being banned to highlight the weaknesses of WP:Child Protection, as a weak policy that is often unenforced.
(In my junior-high English, we were often asked to read an essay and to identify a likely purpose for an essay.) |
---|
|
Does Jimbo Wales ( talk · contribs) continue to exemplify WP:NPA and WP:Civility in his response on Silver Seren ( talk · contribs)? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
@ Jimbo Wales: Per your request, you've got mail. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 05:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
![]() | On 12 September 2013, Schon gewusst? was updated with a fact from the translation of the article Robert Phelps, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was: Der Mathematiker Robert Phelps, Professor an der University of Washington, illustrierte mathematische Zusammenhänge mit Bergsteiger-Metaphern. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( quick check). |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you see any justification for this edit? I've undone it, just wondering if there's something I'm missing.
Any news on an appeal to ArbCom to overturn your ban? Eric Corbett 22:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
There's also Ottava Rima of course. These ArbCom bans seem quite bizarre really. Has anyone ever escaped from one? Eric Corbett 00:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ Dr. Blofeld: Joe Cinderella tuned his guitar in third intervals (mixing minor or major third intervals), according to Carlton (2009, pp. 179 and 181).
This reference should interest you, since e.g. it contains an interview with Johnny Smith. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
|
The reference to Joe Cinderella's thirdish tuning is from the latest thread on major thirds tuning among jazz guitarists, which features this tribute to yours truly.
"I respect the FACT you understand the frailties of WIKI. Your tolerance for my adversarial style of interpersonal communication is quite refreshing. You have my respect and I am now a fan. Finally, someone who his cool as a cucumber. Bravo!" [15]
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Arbcom! ;) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ArbCom attracts administrators who wish to spend their free hours reading lists of diffs from conflicts, with each side presenting only diffs painting their opponent in a bad light, but who find ANI discussions too short(!).
Thus, past elections have lacked qualified candidates and have offered too many unsuitable candidates.
ArbCom needs encyclopediasts like Casliber ( talk · contribs) and Charles Matthews ( talk · contribs) and Iridescent ( talk · contribs), who have previously served with honor and distinction. I would encourage them and SandyGeorgia ( talk · contribs), Nikkimaria ( talk · contribs), Drmies ( talk · contribs), Reaper Eternal ( talk · contribs), RegentsPark ( talk · contribs), Rjensen ( talk · contribs), EdJohnston ( talk · contribs), Leaky caldron ( talk · contribs), and Carrite ( talk · contribs) to consider running this year.
As respected community leaders, TParis ( talk · contribs), Elen of the Roads ( talk · contribs), Floquenbeam ( talk · contribs), NE Ent ( talk · contribs), Boing! said Zebedee ( talk · contribs), Nick ( talk · contribs), John ( talk · contribs), and 28bytes ( talk · contribs) should consider running.
Administrators Fram ( talk · contribs), Bbb23 ( talk · contribs), and Bwilkins ( talk · contribs) also have backbone. I attribute past disagreements (e.g., blocks) with Fram and Bwilkins partially to my errors and partially to their orneriness---an unfortunate side-effect of blocking scores of nutjobs daily.
(The division into community leaders and writers relies on my faulty memory and snap judgment, and is immaterial to the recruitment process anyhow.)
From this year's ArbCom, Hersfold has already resigned. Risker, AGK, SilkTork, and Kirill Lokshin have accounced that they shall not seek re-election.
This year, I shall look closely at the candidates' records regarding these contentious issues:
For several quality-review projects, the leaders have been attacked for years by sock-puppets of banned users and, alas, often seem to be criticized en masse by a network of administrators (at least some of whom have left a record of sexist remarks).
Many writers who are not administrators have contempt for the Administrator Noticeboard and have lost confidence with the Arbitration Committee, simply because of the failure of administrators evenly to apply Wikipedia's civility and no-personal-attacks policy. The essay Boomerang, which reminds editors not to file complaints unless they want to be held accountable for their own behavior, is not even a guideline (and certainly not a policy).
In last year's Civility Enforcement case, ArbCom announced that it would hear a wide-ranging case on Civility Enforcement, but instead chose to sanction only Malleus Faturoum, even though there was plenty of evidence against others, particularly those attacking Malleus repeatedly. Nobody was sanctioned for conducting campaigns of abuse.
Besides wasting the community's time and ignoring the evidence submitted about uneven enforcement, this action had the appearance that the proceedings were a bread-and-circuses show, while the real decision was made by the committee in private. Indeed, former arbitrator Iridescent correctly predicted the final votes just by knowing the members of the committee!
Administrators and arbitrators should not be so partisan that they ignore evidence of abuse by their friends and allies and solely target their opponents. Administrators and arbitrators should not be so intellectually lazy or partisan that they do not investigate the context of diffs at ANI or ArbCom, and sanction all guilty parties, particularly abusive administrators.
Similar partisanship ocurred in the case banning me. The community set-up Arbcom as the last step in dispute-resolution, and the community-approved policy requires that all parties to a dispute be discussed. There had been no RfC on Ironholds and myself, so as some arbs noted in considering the case, arbcom did not have a remit to have a case. When the case began, Arbcom arbitrarily prevented me from adding users Worm That Turned and Demiurge1000 as parties and barred me from discussing their behavior, while simultaneously welcoming them to continue their two-year long campaign against me. I was banned from participating from the case after noting Demiurge1000's block for dishonesty and for adding diffs that were later cited by arbcom when it desysopped and nearly banned Ironholds. Other editors have noted that the diffs of incivility and personal attacks by me were made in response to prior incivility and personal attacks by administrators, to which arbcom acquiesced. In particular, Salvio guiliano thrice let stand personal attacks against me by user:Kurtis, each of which were more severe than the "honesty or intelligent" remark cited by Arbcom in its decision to ban me. Arbcom needs to stop practicing "uneven enforcement of civility".
ArbCom needs to prioritize justice.
In particular, ArbCom's leaking and (in 2013) publishing personal information of Eric Corbett ( talk · contribs).
Proposal withdrawn, following comments by Iridescent |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
On the other hand, all candidates should have either of the statements
Motivation: In the last election, some previous accounts were posted by an election moderator, after AGK failed to disclose them. |
ArbCom members have complained to WMF director Sue Gardner that they are unable to enforce the existing child protection policy, which has roughly 20 cases yearly.
In banning me, the current ArbCom ruled, in effect, that adult editors are free to contact vulnerable minors off-Wiki, despite parental objections, because such contacts are not criminal. (Only criminal actions are prohibited by the weak child-protection policy.) At the same time, my discussing such contacts was declared to be a tacit accusation of pedophilia. This year's ArbCom had no warrant chillingly to prohibit discussion of behavior that is compatible with the child-protection policy (but which is prohibited by responsible organizations, like the Girl Scouts).
All committees suffer from group polarization, and one hopes that members of this year's Arbcom should recognize several horrible decisions. To reduce the frequency and severity of horrible decisions, committees need persons with backbone and preferably confidence. For example, this year, Worm That Turned
Last year, I mistakenly endorsed Kww because of his independence. It is possible that this year's guide may again mistake independence for courage.
Ks0stm has a year more experience of doing good work as an administrator, mostly quietly but sometimes with good will and humor contributing to dispute resolution. The committee has a lot of work to do, and this is an administrator who is reliable and will not waste time. I trust that all other guides shall join me in supporting Ks0stm.
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2013 candidate:
Ks0stm
|
RegentsPark writes articles, mediates content disputes, and is one of the most helpful persons with resolving issues at ANI. RegentsPark has been invaluable in helping to maintain civility and productive editing on articles related to Pakistan and India, one of the toughest proving grounds for administrators.
In her 2012 guide, SandyGeorgia has a good discussion of RegentsPark's virtues on 2012 Wikipedia controversies.
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2012 candidate:
RegentsPark
|
Richwales is running on two pillars, civility and NPOV. Raising NPOV, which is supported by all, is a distraction, just like in 2012. My 2012 guide explains why his candidacy was inadequate, respectfully. This year I shall be blunter, because Richwales's statement fails to show any greater self-awareness or acknowledgment of the concerns of those who opposed him: His statement ignores
If elected, Richwales could push a schoolboy understanding of civility (focusing on naughty words, rather than on overall behavior) ahead of the other pillars, which concern the encyclopedic aspects of Wikipedia.
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2013 candidate:
Richwales
|
Anthony's early RfAs
had many concerns about "hat collecting" (forging path to power through dispute resolution projects and positions on other projects, rather than writing articles) and inconsistencies. He failed to declare his alternative accounts last election, but was able to remain eligible after a moderator took the initiative to declare some on his behalf. After the last election, he previously announced (as Rschen has confirmed) that he would not run again; recently he reversed himself and declared that he was about to run. There are just too much variation in his performance---most notably his off-hand comment that Eric Corbett ( talk · contribs) was "a net negative to the project", which (at best) served no good purpose and which wasted a lot of time.
My banning case had a similar pattern of wild inconsistency. First, Anthony declared himself to have a conflict because of his simultaneous role as an administrator of Wikipedia's IRC channel. Second, he said he would participate because the case would consider the administrator IRC channel, not the general one. Third, Anthony participated in the case, which did cite (non-administrative) IRC chats by Ironholds, precisely his previously declared conflict of interest. Granted that individually any of these three positions could be considered as plausible, rapidly bouncing from position to position without explanation wasted a lot of time and looked (at best) thoughtless.
It seems to me that AGK would better serve the project by writing some articles and helping to resolve disputes without using his tools, i.e. emulating e.g. Drmies. (Like Richwales, AGK is a much better candidate than some of those running in the last elections, e.g., YOLO SWAG, KWW, Beeblebrox, Panyd, etc.)
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2013 candidate:
AGK
|
The best writers write the best guides.
Other 2013 guides | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
This guide shall be updated as candidates present themselves and as other guides appear.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![]() | This page contains material that is kept because it is considered
humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
Remember that 10 represents average human ability, so everything above 10 is a (sincere) compliment.
Character | Strength | Dexterity | Constitution | Intelligence | Wisdom | Charisma | Alignment | Class | Level | Race [1] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nuclear Warfare | 12 | 16 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 14 | Lawful good | Cleric? | 7 | Human |
Casliber | 17 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 17 | Lawful good | Paladin | 11 | Human |
Elen of the Roads | 14 | 17 [2] | 15 | 16 | 16 | 16 | Chaotic good | Interspecies diplomat | 8 | Metron |
Newyorkbrad | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 17 | 15 | Lawful good | Arch-mage | 11 | Watcher |
Carcharoth | 18 | 14 | 18 | 16 | 18 | 15 | Chaotic good | Bard, [3] formerly RED | 8 | sheepish Ent wearing Fenris Wolf's clothing |
Worm That Turned | 12 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 16 | Neutral [4] good | Ring bearer [5] | 5 | Hobbit |
Sir Fozzie (Sabbatical) | 14 | 14 | 14 | 15 | 14 | 14 | Lawful good | Indefatigable companion | 8? | WereMuppet |
Guerillero | 18 | 14 | 18 | 15 | 15 | 13 | Lawful good | Ranger | 5 | Bearish man |
Keilana | 14 | 15 | ? | 14 | 15 | 15 | Chaotic good | Sorcerer | Apprentice | Muggle parents |
Richwales | 11 | 12 | ? | 11 | 12 | 12 | Lawful neutral | Cleric? | 4? | Canuck, eh? |
YOLO Swag | 10 | 12 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 12 | Chaotic neutral | Rogue | 3 | Human |
Jclemens | 16 | 10 | 16 | 16 | 10 | 10 | Chaotic Lawful | Mentat | 8 | Vulcan |
Jc37 | 10 [6] | 10 | 17 | 10 | 10 | 15 | Chaotic lawful | bard | 6 | closeted Beserker |
Coren | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 12 | Lawful good | Artificer ( Muninn & Huginn) | 21 | Demigod |
Count Iblis | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | Chaotic neutral | Count Iblis | 2 | Extraterrestrial |
Please comment here on the guide, if you wish. Do not comment on the guide in the above section.
Updated: I may alter or delete sections from the above guide. Therefore, you may wish to quote from this document or provide a permalink diff to this document when commenting. (Alas, I lack the time to provide this service for you.) 11:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Die Lösung | The Solution |
---|---|
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni |
After the uprising of the 17th of June |
I'm long, long gone; while I still very occasionally comment on Wikipedia (generally when someone pings me or something happens to draw something to my notice), these are the sum-total of my mainspace edits in the last six months. I'm to all practical purposes a banned editor, given that any return would draw down a firestorm of nutcases from all sides of the lunatic fringe, which would make beavering away in a quiet corner impossible, while I have no interest in getting involved in the rearranging-of-deckchairs drama side of things. (I see you've managed to get yourself banned in my absence. I'm not even going to try to make sense of this mess, although I'll note in passing that "knickers in a twist" has nothing to do with "a sexist reference to women's underwear"—it's a reference to the baggy shorts worn in rugby league and the effects of their being grabbed and twisted upon the male anatomy, and is an absolutely standard phrase in the north of England.)
I try to avoid commenting publicly on Wikipedia's internal matters, except in a few instances like the infobox case where I was specifically asked, or in a very few cases like Eric Corbett's block or the farce documented at Talk:London in the 1960s, which directly or indirectly relate to something I did when I was active. I know from experience that there's little that's more irritating than characters from the past who have little or no involvement with the present-day Wikipedia turning up to harangue about how they would have done whatever it was you've just done differently back in their day; I have no desire to become another Larry Sanger or Kelly Martin, and I imagine I speak for Elen on that as well.
Even if I were still active on Wikipedia, there's no way I would ever consider running for Arbcom again, and my advice to anyone considering running themselves has always been not to. Through no fault of those involved the current system is irretreivably broken; the vacuum in Wikipedia's governance structure means Arbcom ends up dealing with all kinds of crap it was never set up to handle, and doesn't have either the mechanisms or authority to enforce the decisions it makes. (My proposed solution remains the same—a smaller Arbcom to make judgements only, not policy decisions, a second committee with a completely different membership with the authority to issue a binding and explicitly policy-forming closure to any RFC with more than—say—20 participants, paid staff at the WMF to handle the privacy and legal stuff that currently gets dumped on Arbcom because nobody else wants to do it (if Wikimedia UK alone can afford to pay each of these people a higher wage than a teacher or police officer earns, I'm sure Sue could find some cash down the back of the sofa for a couple of extra part-timers on the legal team), and a change to the Terms of Service by which all editors explicitly agree to abide by decisions of the two committees. This has no chance whatsoever of ever happening.)
While my saying this will make Eric choke on his cornflakes, if you're looking at encouraging former Arbs to run you could do a lot worse than
Jclemens. I disagree with him on virtually everything, but in my experience he will actually discuss things with other people rather than engaging in "do you know who I am?" posturing or pseudo-intellectual games,* has a consistent position but not so consistent that it becomes dogmatic, and is willing to explain his thoughts to anyone who asks and to entertain the possibility that he may be wrong. If you're looking for someone to pass judgement on people, I'd take someone who passes harsh judgements but listens to both sides and tries to be fair, over someone who talks like they're everybody's best pal but doesn't have the guts to take action against someone who's genuinely causing a problem.
*Arbcom, ANI and all the rest would all be greatly improved were a rule implemented that any use of Latin when not discussing Ancient Rome or Papal encyclicals be treated as grounds for a non-negotiable 24-hour block. Certain people—you know who you are—seem to take a particular pride in using obscure legal jargon and incomprehensible Latin terms, often to editors who are relatively young or don't have English as their first language. To my mind, this misuse of language to belittle people from other educatonal backgrounds is far more "uncivil" than the occasional "fuck off". See also people who throw
TLAs into conversations with new users and then patronise them for not understanding what them mean. ("Why did you revert my changes?" "WP follows VNT and I am a SME and used AWB to BRD, but CCC so you may want to get a 3O before taking it to ANEW. If you breach 3RR I will take you to ANI.")
As a more general musing on Arbcom, I think it would be healthy for all concerned were NYB, Roger Davies and Risker to take at least a year off. If the system is really so broken that it will fall apart without three specific people to hold it together, then it's hopelessly broken and it's better that it be allowed to fail quickly; if it's robust enough to function without them, then it's probably healthy to get by without them for a while as there's a risk of them drifting into "founding father" status where people start to feel uncomfortable questioning their judgement even if they say something that's clearly wrong (cf Jimmy Wales).
In answer both to your comments about abusive administrators and to Carcharoth's question on my talkpage, I don't believe "abusive admins" as such are the problem, but I believe they're a symptom of a structural flaw in the current Wikipedia model. Wikipedia's systemic problems stem much more from the fact that people can engage in abusive behaviours if they have a group of friends to protect them, and that some people have come to regard themselves as indispensable and feel that " If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" parses as "do whatever the hell you feel like provided someone's got your back". Certainly a lot of these people are admins, but that's because a lot of people who've been on Wikipedia for long enough to become part of the furniture are admins, not because admins are inherently worse than non-admins. Some of the most egregious examples (the endless block-unblock-reblock cycle around civility, the atrocious conduct on both sides regarding infoboxes, the constant stream of low-level abuse people who edit Indian articles put up with, WP:QAI's shenanigans at Featured Articles, the disturbing number of people who think that the higher their ranking on WBFAN the more right they have to ignore even fundamental core policies, and many many more) either don't involve admins or don't involve admins acting in their admin capacity, but can be traced back to someone or other having an "I have so many friends, nobody will ever take any action against me" mindset. If Wikipedia had a functioning policy-making process an awful lot of this could be avoided (see two paragraphs up); I doubt (for instance) that Eric would object to Wikipedia having a formal "no swearing unless it's demonstrably necessary" rule provided it was unambiguous and applied evenly. I lost my temper at Worm over Eric's block not necause it was necessarily wrong, but because it looked at the time to be clearly uneven—at the time, the block notification in full read "Enough is enough. I'm changing this to indef. Every single edit since you've been blocked yesterday has been unacceptable. I will be blocking this talk page and moving this conversation to the administrators noticeboard to discuss further.", which is less explanation than is given to an IP blocked for posting penis-enlargement spam. (As I'm sure even Eric would concur, there is a legitimate argument to be made for banning him from Wikipedia, but "Enough is enough, you're banned forever" is certainly not it.)
On "disclosure of prevous accounts", cut some slack provided there's no intention to deceive. A lot of people with easily mis-spelled usernames register a lot of doppelganger accounts to prevent confusion (from someone else innocently choosing a similar name), but won't necessarily keep a list. You presumably wouldn't want to be treated as some kind of crazed sockmaster just because you happened to register User:Keifer Wolfwitz in 2007 to prevent anyone else using it. – iridescent 10:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I was quite surprised to see that you have me listed as support in your guide...not sure why, I just wasn't really expecting it. I'm quite honored and thank you for your kind words. =) Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 23:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Harold Meyerson just published an article on The March on Washington and the Socialist Party. Perhaps it could be added to as an external link to Tom Kahn#External_links?
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
@ Dr. Blofeld: or @ Hyacinth:
Please add the above image to new standard tuning and please cite my music in New standard tuning#External_links:
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)Thanks!
Best regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ Dr. Blofeld: Would somebody please add Dr. Keith Bromley's chord-guide to major thirds tuning as an Major thirds tuning#External_links?
and his perfect-fourths guide to {{}} all-fourths tuning#external_links:
My discussions at the jazz-guitar forum may interest you. In particular, my claim that tunings effect the sound of individual notes received no support (because most guitarists mute sympathetically resonating strings). Thanks again! Best regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
|
@ Ceoil: and @ Dr. Blofeld: [16]. In this video, Ginger Baker does not sound like Buddy Rich about to throw somebody under the bus. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Banned user maintaining ArbCom election guide. Thank you.
equazcion
→ 23:21, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)
Administrator Pedro ( talk · contribs) repeated his accusation that I am a returned user, which he notes he has been making for years. Since ArbCom and its clerks did not have the decency to act on my complaints about the years of false accusations at the ArbCom case, would any administrator with integrity now enforce WP:NPA? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is considering a request for clarification which involves you. [17] Please act accordingly.— John Cline ( talk) 10:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The banning policy says:
Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban. An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal in accordance with the provisions below.
Any other edit to the talkpage is unequivocally a violation of the ban, I have consequently revoked your talkpage access. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kiefer, this is a courtesy message to inform you the clarification request regarding you has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Belated happy christmas and best for the new year |
![]() |
Wishing you all the best for 2014, dont hurry back though man is my advice. You might like this, [18] or not. But you have certainly softened me to many bands I might not have given a toss about before, so tks for those links. Ceoil ( talk) 23:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC) |
Kiefer, I assure you I have not watched that movie. :) I can't stand (most) Disney stuff, and I use "Disney" as a generic term which I won't, at this time, define any further. I will cop to having taken the girls to see Frozen and That Movie About the Girl with the Really Long Hair Locked in the Tower (that last one in 3D, even--kind of cool!), but that's in part to fulfill a marital obligation. Hope you and yours are well, and I hope that ArbCom won't slap me on the wrist for this message. Respond in Dutch smoke signals: I'll be looking toward Scandinavia during the Superb owl halftime show. Drmies ( talk) 16:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!
It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:
Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (
Ocaasi)
19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User:Demiurge1000
"Consistent with the Terms of Use, this user has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing Wikimedia sites.
Please address any questions to legal@wikimedia.org."
@ Kiefer.Wolfowitz: can you access your talk page and reply? I hope you're well. Az x2 20:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Special Lucia celebration for you: coffee and buns from festively arrayed Bishzilla Lucia! ['Zilla twirls to display her becoming Luciakrona in the round.] bishzilla ROARR!! 15:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC).
I copied your red warning, did you know? Look for "arbitration" on my talk, just above "Snowballs in Hell", -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, that was a while ago, but didn't change. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
10 July |
It took only 300 years to restore her good name. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |
wild garlic |
---|
On this day in 1742, He was despised was performed for the first time, and when I wrote it in 2012, I didn't only think of Jesus. Andreas Scholl sang that for us, - you are invited to a Baroque stroll. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
979-0-9016791-7-7. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 8#979-0-9016791-7-7 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
18:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
It seems that User:KWW has forgotten to leave a block notice, with diff(s) and an explanation of why he thinks Ironholds / OKeyes (WMF)'s IRC suggestion of burning me alive (on Wikipedia's IRC channel)
is hunkey dorey, particularly for WMF employee and Wikipedia administrator Oliver Keyes. Does WMF Director Sue Gardner know about Ironholds's use of WMF's Wikipedia channels (IRC)? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is that a good block, if that IRC log is accurate? Black Kite ( talk) 23:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I have unblocked. Yes, Kiefer Wolfowitz's comment was unacceptable on its own, and repetition of this or similar comments, even when provoked, should result in new blocks. But considering the circumstances, with a functionary making an extremely inappropriate "joke" (if one can call it that) on a channel where Kiefer Wolfowitz has no means to respond, a "tit-for-tat" response, while very ill-considered, is also understandable. The fact that thus far, Kiefer Wolfowitz has received a 3 month block while User:Ironholds hasn't even received a warning (even if his remark was technically, wiki-lawyerishly off-wiki, it is still a location where he acts in function, not some off-wiki personal discussion), is a guarantee that this block will not have the desired effect at all, and will only increase the feelings of unequal treatment of admins (or other functionaries) vs. non-admins.
Kiefer Wolfowitz, please, if something like this happens again, don't lash out, just go to some noticeboard and make a calm and civil complaint there. That will at least have a chance that the result will be the reverse of what happened now. Fram ( talk) 12:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Offsite comments and personal attacks and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 23:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
17 July 2013
24 July 2013
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Are open, honest, refreshingly direct, very funny, and crucially, consistent. They are trying to grind you down. Stick to your guns. Ceoil ( talk) 10:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't that fall under a task force of WP:WikiProject Pornography? WP:WikiProject Pornography/Masturbation work group. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Demographics of Wikipedia editors: Minors, especially neurologically disabled boysKiefer, I don't particularly want to join the IRC/Arsten discussion just to ask you a couple of questions, so coming here seemed easier and more direct. Do you have anything to back up your assertions that the median age of editors is 17 and that "many editors have neurological or social disabilities"? The second asssertion is a bit vaguer (what does "many" mean and how do we define neurological and social disabilities), but I'd still like to know what you base the claims on. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
|
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello Kiefer. As you might know, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement as soon as you can. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 21 21:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
|
I don't want to add more text, given the previous complaints. I plan to see which members of the WMF Board have accounts on English Wikipedia, and also alert them of the IRC discussion, as I did with Wales and Gardner. I am uncertain about the liability of Arbcom members in cases of misfeasance or malfeasance. My experience of non-profit boards in other states leads me to believe that individual board members are individually liable in such cases. I would not want to be liable for failing to implement the steps of the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts on child protection, with years of notices that there were problems on Wikipedia. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Then again, I feel I'm the wrong person to discuss the issue, because I have already made abundantly clear to my fellow arbs that I will never get involved in child protection issues because of liability concerns and general qualms (we are a bunch of dedicated people who try to do what's best for the encyclopaedia, but we lack both proper training and resources to deal with such investigations). My only involvement in the topic area has been to push for the foundation to take over. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Email via WMF |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Administrator Nick reported that "on IRC ... administrators (are) being harassed over the refusal to revision delete KW's initial comment ... and there has been various attempts to influence various people to vote for an indefinite block. Nobody has named the administrators who were organizing this campaign. Worse, no administrator declared that they had read about my blocking discussion at IRC. Nobody has asserted that this stealth canvassing was isolated.
How surprising that all of ArbCom want this section hidden.
For Wikipedia editors, the percentage of 12-17 year olds was guesstimated to be 13%; regardless of age, many editors have neurological disorders or social impairments.
Despite the high participation of vulnerable editors, WMF and English Wikipedia lack serious standards for child-protection; in particular, neither complies with the minimum requirements of the United States Child Online Privacy and Protection Act (COPPA) and the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which ban participation at social-networking sites by children under 13 and require parental approval for other children. Neither organization meets the benchmark set by the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts.
ArbCom has already communicated to Sue Gardner its concern about being overwhelmed with c. 20 cases of child protection each year. And these are cases more severe than cases that have been ignored, because of the toothless child-protection policy of Wikipedia:
Such editors' on-Wiki actions violate the child-protection codes of the Scouts and other responsible organizations, but not WMF and Wikipedia. What happens on WMF/Wikipedia's IRC, particularly in WMF/WP IRC chat-rooms?
Do ArbCom members agree to pay for civil and criminal legal-costs related to IRC from their own pockets, and so agree to refuse WMF funds or legal council?
If my memory is correct, all the AUSC "community members" (and even runner-up TParis) are regular IRC participants, and I have trouble recalling any time where AUSC members tried to raise standards. Indeed Guerrillo's response to Tim Riley's question about using bots to mass-create articles was worse than Slughorn's answer to Tom Riddle's question about Horcruxes.
IRC has a disproportionate influence on ArbCom.
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer, there is no need for comments like this, it is an allegation against a non-party and so is not permitted on case pages. If you continue to breach the requirments listed in the notice I will restrict your participation in the case and/or you may be blocked. If you comply with the conditions listed in the notice there won't be a problem. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
...why is it linked to from Wikipedia space and participation used for RFA worthiness? More Kirk, less Spock.
And actually the "seekret" admin IRC (not linked any more because of past scandals, but very frequented) is even spookier than giving something sanction.
TCO ( talk) 20:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, and not that you give a shit what I think. But, I think you are busting IH's chops too much. I would just bury the hatchet and put him on your ignore list (this forum has one, right?)
He's got some strange behaviors at times, but he's not that different from you or me in some ways. Writes content. Let's it lose verbally. And it was actually pretty deft to think of the lighter remark that fast.
Just make sure you are not playing the victim too hard. People do that a lot here.
TCO ( talk) 20:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes. And I didn't take it seriously. I have no wish to protect him and have sparred with him, so if I were just a Wiki game player who wants to manipulate the moderation system to get foes vanquished would just be happy someone was getting fucket at Arbcom (or even losing his job). And I knew you would not agree with me...but it's my Bayesian gestalt. Feel free to preserve your opinion on the remarks, I know you are pretty different than me. Just make sure some time to step back and think meta. (You can still feel same on IH, just want the split-second self-reflection in addition [this is not an x-y equation, it's more like third semester calc with z's and w's). 21:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to be a total meddling diplomat and post on both of y'all's pages that I think you should each apologize (directly and unreservedly), that you should avoid each other, and that you each write good stuff. TCO ( talk) 21:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kiefer, I'm not jumping up and down or accusing you of anything, just a quick and hopefully simple question: What is the relevance of this to the case? It might be that I'm missing something (apart from Mark being the filing party) so I thought I'd check with you. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oliver Keyes ( Ironholds / Okeyes(WMF) ) is abusive and mendacious even in his role as "community liason" with WMF.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Remind KW to use an irony fontHi Kiefer. I was wondering whether I can be of assistance to with regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tiptoety#Copyright_infringement. Could you explain to me what the issue is? Many Thanks Seddon talk 17:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
@ Drmies:
I want to purchase sniper diapers, stockpiling them for my older age, where they will have more virility than Depends undergarments, I'll wager. (Although, the improvements in diapers fill me with hope for humanity. I could go on for hours about the wonders of diapers from Pampers, Huggies, and ICA!) Our user fee for day care is substantially less, so much so, that I would be embarrassed to tell you. :D I don't know whether it's good to go into the philosophy of science. Developing statistical methods and concepts seems to be the best route towards understanding and advancing science. (In Sweden, too many social scientists want to talk about only issues related to Karl Popper....) I've never regretted time I've spent studying logic. Logic, lattice theory, and linear algebra (real and complex fields) have the biggest bang for the buck! :) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
WMF CEO Sue Gardner ( talk · contribs) jokes about pinning a female employee up against a wall, the way "Ironholds like it" [1]
- [10:10am] <sgardner>: Thehelpfulone: we could ask Kat, right now :-)
- [10:10am] <Thehelpfulone>: indeed, mindspillage what do you do?
- [10:10am] <sgardner>: (Pinning her up against the wall, as Ironholds likes :-)
Are other editors proud of WMF's leadership? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi KW. Regarding [2] - you are right to push for this. Arbcom do hold secret evidence pages from time to time, and I have on wiki and off wiki evidence where Arbcom members have both denied and confirmed this. (refactored comments) Pedro : Chat 20:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
(UTC)
Quoted by Peter Damian ( talk · contribs) from WP:IRC's channel #wikipedia-en (24 November 2011, or 20111124):
- 101 [17:14] * tommorris wonders if we could tempt the really fucking perverted by offering a premium Jimmy Wales RealDoll.
- 106 [17:15] <Ironholds> tommorris: we could have a Peter Damian one!
- 107 [17:15] <Ironholds> as anatomically vacant as a ken doll
- 108 [17:15] <tommorris> Ironholds: you have to pay extra for the shemale option
- 109 [17:15] <Ironholds> "punching him in the face feels like punching the real thing!"
This led to a discussion on the talk page of Jimbo Wales:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Jimbo, today I happened to read this. As you see a Wikipedia administrator, and a member of the Wikimedia OTRS team User:Tom Morris "wonders if we could tempt the really fucking perverted by offering a premium Jimmy Wales Real Doll". So his wondering made me to wonder, if it safe to use OTRS. I mean do you believe that the members of the Wikimedia OTRS team are responsible enough to be trusted with people's personal information? Thanks. 76.126.140.123 ( talk) 03:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Fuck it, KW, you went down swinging. Passive resistance or a measured defense would have served you better than dropping trou and shaking your booty at ArbCom, but it was either going to be a lynch mob or a judicial lynching at a certain point so I guess it doesn't matter that much in the long run. Remember not to edit around the ban, that's cause for permanent immolation in Alice's Wonderland, whereas even certifiable dickwads have been restored to full status if they patiently wait out the calendar and then genuflect to the priesthood... The alternative, of course, is a full throttle, no holds barred war on WP fought from the Island of Lost Souls off-wiki. That's more to your temperament but would be a great loss to the encyclopedia, in my view. I hope you'll hang in there and give it another spin down the road. See ya at WPO. Carrite ( talk) 23:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
This awful city—it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children.
— Walter Kovacs, Rorschach's journal, October 12th 1985.
There is good and there is evil, and evil must be punished. Even in the face of Armageddon I shall not compromise in this. But there are so many deserving of retribution ... and there is so little time.
— Walter Kovacs, October 13th
Kiefer, your most recent submission is precisely the sort of thing that can't be submitted as public evidence. If you have concerns of that nature, you must communicate them privately to the committee. Defaming other people – even editors and even by insinuation – could draw lots of trouble to you and Wikipedia. We (the arbitrators) have opened a private discussion about your recent submission, and you must not make any similar such evidence submissions in the future. Thank you, AGK [•] 23:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I saw the section you added to the talk pages of the List of Wikipedia controversies and Wikimedia Foundation articles. Are you somehow suggesting that the link be added to those articles? That would not be appropriate in my opinion and if you are just trying to get people to read the blog post then I think it is even less appropriate. Should other news sources pick up the information in Dan's blog then that would be another matter. Dan may be a journalist and his blog may be attached to the Christian Science Monitor but that doesn't change the fact that he has strong personal opinions regarding this site and is fairly close to matters concerning this site as a current contributor.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
For edit warring on
Wikipediocracy, I have just blocked you for 31 hours. If you want to appeal this block, please use the {{
unblock}}
template.
Salvio
Let's talk about it!
13:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
This is in contrast to something comparing something with /opinion/ in it from CNN to an article, or a blogs.cnn.com blog. Bottom line, I see absolutely no indication this is a blog/opinion piece, but every indication it is actually an article that has been subject to the organization's full oversight. However, I tend to define "blog" as 'not oversighted by the organization'.. Regardless, your block was horribly one sided. ~ Charmlet -talk- 15:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chinese name | |||||||
Traditional Chinese | 批鬥大會 | ||||||
Simplified Chinese | 批斗大会 | ||||||
| |||||||
Tibetan name | |||||||
Tibetan | thamzing | ||||||
|
You have previously been warned about making allegations against non-parties, I gave some leeway to allow you to more easily rebut the evidence presented by non-parties however
this comment along is too far. Whether it is material to the case or not is debatable (one which I'm not going to have with you), however it is unsupported by evidence; in fact I can't see how you have even try and justify Demiurge1000 given the evidence already submitted. Given that you have been warned about this and warning(s) haven't achieved their intended goal, you are banned from all pages related to the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case until 12:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC), this includes any page beginning with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds or Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds. Failure to comply with this restriction will further sanctions such as a block or extension of the restriction. If you wish to appeal this sanction you may by sending an email with your reasoning to the
Clerks-l mailing list or ArbCom-en-b (arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org) mailing list.
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
11:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
For some time not just Worm That Turned and Newyorkbrad but the also the rest of Arbcom has had links about the on- and off-Wiki pursuits of one of the "non-participants", who somehow is still participating in this case. Why is he not blocked?
The usual rules of ArbCom require that all parties to a conflict are involved. They removed even Mark Arsten, the filer of the case, against another of their rules. Then they allow Worm That Turn and Demiurge1000 to continue the years-long campaign against me, not discussing the "dispute with Ironholds" but dredging up their old complaints from 2011, while I'm not allowed to discuss their behavior.
They are dishonest as a committee, and I have yet to see an honest member amongst them, stating an objection to any of the authoritarianism.
And all of them act like Leninists, with their party-line and no-disagreements in public. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 14:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Hi, thanks for the revert. Is it normal for the workshop being closed without any template put up (or am I blind and missing it)? I don't really have much experience with arbcom cases. Snowolf How can I help? 20:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I've blocked your account for 48 hours, because of this comment. From my perspective, you are making an entirely unacceptable attack on the Arbitration Committee. PhilKnight ( talk) 15:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
"You, slave, will be torn apart by horses, to the plaudits of the troops and the amusement of the children." |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Former arbitrator PhilKnight is another administrator who doesn't know how to use his block button. My block is expired, but Knight snafued the IP-block. Please block Knight for the hours he wrongly blocked me.
Accept reason:
Autoblock cleared. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 18:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Reaper Eternal: Thank you very much! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
[6]. Volunteer Marek 04:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Fantastic. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 07:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC) |
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I note you're no longer on break, but retired. None of it seems to slow you down much. Bishonen | talk 20:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
It's sad when a discussion of freedom of speech has the picture of the authoritarian justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., apologist for the federal state's silencing of paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights ( Schenk v. United States) and forced sterilization.
Just in case you didn't see it, I replied to your comment about Oliver Wendell Holmes on the Signpost page. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
For the rational study of the law the blackletter man may be the man of the present, but the man of the future is the man of statistics and the master of economics.
— Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., " The Path of the Law" 10 Harvard Law Review 457 (1897)
George Anastaplo is, like C. A. Patrides was, an interesting Greek-American intellectual (who also served in WWII). Other editors may wish to help write an article.
Anastaplo argued the case himself before the U.S. Supreme Court, losing the case but being praised in the dissent by Justice Hugo Black.
The first amendment and "The Right of Revolution"The effect of the Court's 'balancing' here is that any State may now reject an applicant for admission to the Bar if he believes in the Declaration of Independence as strongly as Anastaplo and if he is willing to sacrifice his career and his means of livelihood in defense of the freedoms of the First Amendment. But the men who founded this country and wrote our Bill of Rights were strangers neither to a belief in the 'right of revolution' nor to the urgency of the need to be free from the control of government with regard to political beliefs and associations. Thomas Jefferson was not disclaiming a belief in the 'right of revolution' when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. And Patrick Henry was certainly not disclaiming such a belief when he declared in impassioned words that have come on down through the years: 'Give me liberty or give me death.' This country's freedom was won by men who, whether they believed in it or not, certainly practiced revolution in the Revolutionary War.
Since the beginning of history there have been governments that have engaged in practices against the people so bad, so cruel, so unjust and so destructive of the individual dignity of men and women that the 'right of revolution' was all the people had left to free themselves. As simple illustrations, one government almost 2,000 years ago burned Christians upon fiery crosses and another government, during this very century, burned Jews in crematories. I venture the suggestion that there are countless multitudes in this country, and all over the world, who would join Anastaplo's belief in the right of the people to resist by force tyrranical governments like those.
In saying what I have, it is to be borne in mind that Anastaplo has not indicated, even remotely, a belief that this country is an oppressive one in which the 'right of revolution' should be exercised. Quite the contrary,
the entire course of his life, as disclosed by the record, has been one of devotion and service to his country-first, in his willingness to defend its security at the risk of his own life in time of war and, later, in his willingness to defend its freedoms at the risk of his professional career in time of peace. The one and only time in which he has come into conflict with the Government is when he refused to answer the questions put to him by the Committee about his beliefs and associations. And I think the record clearly shows that conflict resulted, not from any fear on Anastaplo's part to divulge his own political activities, but from a sincere, and in my judgment correct, conviction that the preservation of this country's freedom depends upon adherence to our Bill of Rights. The very most that can fairly be said against Anastaplo's position in this entire matter is that he took too much of the responsibility of preserving that freedom upon himself.
This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that Anastaplo has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows, not only that Anastaplo has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost. It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law-men like Malsherbes, who, at the cost of his own life and the lives of his family, sprang unafraid to the defense of Louis XVI against the fanatical leaders of the Revolutionary government of France---men like Charles Evans Hughes, Sr., later Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, who stood up for the constitutional rights of socialists to be socialists and public officials despite the threats and clamorous protests of self-proclaimed superpatriots---men like Charles Evans Hughes, Jr., and John W. Davis, who, while against everything for which the Communists stood, strongly advised the Congress in 1948 that it would be unconstitutional to pass the law then proposed to outlaw the Communist Party---men like Lord Erskine, James Otis, Clarence Darrow, and the multitude of others who have dared to speak in defense of causes and clients without regard to personal danger to themselves. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.
But that is the present trend, not only in the legal profession but in almost every walk of life. Too many men are being driven to become government-fearing and time-serving because the Government is being permitted to strike out at those who are fearless enough to think as they please and say what they think. This trend must be halted if we are to keep faith with the Founders of our Nation and pass on to future generations of Americans the great heritage of freedom which they sacrificed so much to leave to us. The choice is clear to me. If we are to pass on that great heritage of freedom, we must return to the original language of the Bill of Rights. We must not be afraid to be free. [1]
- ^ "In re George ANASTAPLO, Petitioner". Open Jurist.
(Footnotes removed)
Justice Black's dissent In re Anastaplo would "immortalize Anastaplo", said Justice Brennan upon reading it. Black's dissent was read at Black's funeral, by his instructions.
I guess we can all see the
writing on the wall by now. I know your complaints regarding certain problems were made in good faith (even though I believe some of them to be flat-out wrong). Thanks for all your work on various articles and for keeping attempting to keep a lot of complete nonsense and silliness off Wikipedia. I wish you the best in your life off Wikipedia, although I'm pretty certain we may occasionally notice each other on Wikipediocracy. (I do have an account there, although I virtually never post comments.) Good luck.
Reaper Eternal (
talk)
21:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
"Come out and take it, you dirty, yellow-bellied rat, or I'll give it to you through the door!". So long, KW, and thanks for all the humour, fireworks, honesty and wit. Don't worry, it's not the end, it's just light and the end of your tunnel. Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Good Night, and Good Luck seems doubly appropriate. December will be interesting this year, not just because Santa Claus puts in an appearance. Nick ( talk) 20:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC) (added a few days ago without signature)I pray you to believe what I have said.... I have reported what I saw and heard, but only part of it. For most of it I have no words. If I've offended you by this rather mild account ..., I'm not in the least sorry.
— Edward R. Murrow, Report from Buchenwald
Although we've had our differences and battles, I never considered myself an enemy of yours.
I hope you have a great time off Wikipedia. Good luck and ¡hasta pronto! —
ΛΧΣ
21
01:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
You fought the law, and the law won. - but if you're an admin then this remake of that old song is more appropriate: [8]. The law is for little people. Volunteer Marek 01:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I am heartened by the greetings and good will messages from friends, colleagues, and the loyal opposition (of the loyal opposition). However, already Newyorkbrad ( talk · contribs) has been chastised for discussing his expansion plans for articles on American law with me:
"I don't quite understand why you're having a discussion with KW on his talk page. Talk pages are provided to editors to help facilitate their editing, and a certain amount of general conversation and so on is not a problem, but Wikipedia is not a forum and, in any case, KW is no longer an editor. Since he is banned, he has no use for his talk page, since he cannot ask for an unblock using it, but must go through BASC or ArbCom to be reinstated."
and I feel that I should warn others to stop writing here, lest they also be accused of consorting with a non-editor (or non-editor per WP:MOS). I already should have repeated the instructions to his friends given by Egon Balas before he had his public denunciation as an enemy of the Communist paradise of Romania (after which he would develop rickets from serving two years of solitary confinement in a dark cell):
Please protect yourself from recriminations and accusations of disloyalty by simply repeating the official accusations against me. You don't need to add new accusations. I will know about your sympathies and not have to worry about your fate. (Will to Freedom, from memory)
Moral: Fall in line and conform with shunning. (Reader's of Balas's autobiography may agree that my being banned is better than my being beaten on the bottom of the feet with a rubber hose.) Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In two discussions
WP administrators display devotion to the quality of articles (on music, mathematics, civil liberties and rights---to mention a few of the topics discussed on this talkpage since ArbCom banned me).... |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Seeing is believing. (The discussion at Jimbo Wales's talk page is something....) Reading WP discussions lately gives me greater respect for the healthy emotional life and tolerance in e.g.
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 18:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Wikiproject Editor RetentionThere were two discussions of my retirement ( wow) and banning ( permalink), which even after reading need not be believed. (I restrain myself from noting the performance of one administrator by name). Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Sock-Puppet Investigation"Aren't administrators supposed to read about SPI policy before filing claims? This may be the worst SPI filing ever. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 18:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Would somebody kindly remove me from the subscribers listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ David Eppstein: For Olof Hanner, these references may be useful (and I am unable to add them): I thought that Grenander named Hanner as part of his time-series group (but I didn't see anything when I just checked)
and indeed Hans Radstrom's article already has this footnote:
Here is a more complete version, which I created from scratch (!):
I think that Hanner's work on intersection numbers is discussed in
Perhaps Michael A. E. Dummett discusses his books on Tarot decks...? Best regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Your ban is unwarranted from what I can tell from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Evidence. I did not add any material to that page for a reason: IMO there was absolutely no evidence of misconduct on Wikipedia, on either your or Ironhold's part. For their part, ArbCom again brings shame and disrepute onto the projects via their unreasonable actions. That said, please feel free to post edits to my sandbox, preferably on the English Wikipedia sandbox but any other as needed (it may take a while for me to notice though), for inclusion in the English Wikipedia, per WP:PROXYING. Int21h ( talk) 17:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
My watchlist contains only this page now, but I do get some notifications on articles I've written, when somebody reverts an edit of mine.
Perhaps Dr. Blofeld ( talk · contribs) might fix an article (following Eric Corbett's fixing Open C tuning:
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
![]() Congratulations to Eric Corbett ( talk · contribs) and Parrot of Doom ( talk · contribs) for their latest great article, Malkin Tower. Related thanks to Nikkimaria ( talk · contribs), SandyGeorgia ( talk · contribs), Dennis Brown ( talk · contribs), Drmies ( talk · contribs), and the saintly Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs) for trying to preserve a refuge of sanity and quality at Wikipedia, outside of the mathematics project. Your intelligence and bravery reminds me of Israel's holding out as the bastion of humanity in World War Z, until it is overrun by zombies, which also brought tears to my eyes. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC) But today's OR, soapboxing, NPA violations, and IDHT at the talk page may be worse than yesterday's shennanigans. Kudos again to many of the above and to Nick ( talk · contribs) for trying to get the talk-page discussion to focus on the reliable sources. KW 21:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
"What are you waiting for? Do it.... Do it!"
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3) For numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies, Kiefer.Wolfowitz is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
For the Arbitration Committee,
-
Penwhale |
dance in the air and
follow his steps
23:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The Christian Science Monitor reported on the case:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Further discussions of this case occur at Wikipediocracy, especially in forums devoted to governance ("Down with Ironholds", sic.) and general discussion (Child protection policy). Appealing to consensus and responding to the concerns of
I removed the direct links to those discussions.
Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
tuning
Thank you for quality articles on
tuning and
mathematicians, even
fictitious ones, for tuned comments to well-wishers, and for striving for serenity when you are "right but others are not ready to listen", - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
A year ago, you were the 220th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style. Stay tuned -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Two years ago, you were the 220th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, - you are also included in the group I sing praises for, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Remember comparing voters' guides for arbitration? - Here are the answers to my question, summary: no foul, play on. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | |
spirale of justice |
Four years ago, you were recipient no. 220 of Precious, a prize of QAI! - An article about justice is TFA, DYK? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Seven years, and missed -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I hope you will consider mailing me, at some future point. Charles Matthews ( talk) 10:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I have recently become aware of your existence through reading portion of a newsletter from Wikipedia talking about banning users and revealing inappropriate behavior by some of Wikipedia's foundation employees in form of expression of violent and/or misogynistic and threatening thought-crime views (Signpost, iirc?) and wanted to ask you some questions that I've pondered during the periods in which I've actively contributed to articles on topics that were of personal interest to me (none of which involve child predation, for example). I hope you will consider to reply to me if you are permitted to do so while blocked? Why do you think people invest/waste/spend so much time and energy creating "drama" w/in what is ostensibly considered the Wikipedia "community", rather than simply work on expanding and improving the online encyclopedia by creating new articles on noteworthy subjects and enhancing those articles that already exist? What motivated you personally to engage and interact with drama-centric editors and administrators who were/are focused more on Wikipedia "community" than Wikipedia's content? Would you describe the actions that ultimately resulted in your questionable 'banning' as self-destructive, or principled? Did you self-sabotage b/c you wanted to spend more time with your family and less time w/ Wikipedia, but knew you'd need an external force to shift your focus (b/c otherwise you'd've just continued expending the same time/energy resources on Wikipedia, ongoing)? Finally, how can an editor avoid having any contact with Wikipedia drama-whores but still engage in processes like nominating articles for Featured-article status and responding to objections from reviewers who might be less interested in the actual content than in exercising whatever virtual "power" they think they've accumulated in the world of the online encyclopedia? Thank you for your time. Az x2 19:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Wikipediocracy today posted a blog on my being blocked after I had raised concerns about child protection ( already linked from User talk:Jimbo Wales; permalink).
In a discussion on his user page, Jimbo Wales ( talk · contribs) stated the falsehood that WP:Child protection is strictly enforced [14], which is easily refuted.
Arbcom lacks the time and training to handle the 20+ cases yearly of child predators, according to arbitrator Worm That Turned ( talk · contribs), who appealed to WMF Director Sue Gardner ( talk · contribs) for help. She has failed to provide any concrete help to ArbCom, although Sue Gardner did appoint a committee with long-time arbitrators Newyorkbrad ( talk · contribs) and Risker ( talk · contribs) to liaise with WMF:Legal.
Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Update: No news is bad news Jimbo Wales has still failed to acknowledge the email (requested in August) with evidence about off-Wiki adult-child behavior---failing to meet the standard of ArbCom's Roger Davies ( talk · contribs), who at least acknowledged receipt (on behalf of the committee). At least ArbCom acknowledged publicly that it was incompetent to handle the existing Child-Protection policy when it asked Sue Gardner for help. Why does WMF continue to beg for donations when it ignores concerns about child safety? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Peter Damian wrote his blog about my being banned to highlight the weaknesses of WP:Child Protection, as a weak policy that is often unenforced.
(In my junior-high English, we were often asked to read an essay and to identify a likely purpose for an essay.) |
---|
|
Does Jimbo Wales ( talk · contribs) continue to exemplify WP:NPA and WP:Civility in his response on Silver Seren ( talk · contribs)? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
@ Jimbo Wales: Per your request, you've got mail. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 05:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
![]() | On 12 September 2013, Schon gewusst? was updated with a fact from the translation of the article Robert Phelps, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was: Der Mathematiker Robert Phelps, Professor an der University of Washington, illustrierte mathematische Zusammenhänge mit Bergsteiger-Metaphern. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( quick check). |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you see any justification for this edit? I've undone it, just wondering if there's something I'm missing.
Any news on an appeal to ArbCom to overturn your ban? Eric Corbett 22:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
There's also Ottava Rima of course. These ArbCom bans seem quite bizarre really. Has anyone ever escaped from one? Eric Corbett 00:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ Dr. Blofeld: Joe Cinderella tuned his guitar in third intervals (mixing minor or major third intervals), according to Carlton (2009, pp. 179 and 181).
This reference should interest you, since e.g. it contains an interview with Johnny Smith. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
|
The reference to Joe Cinderella's thirdish tuning is from the latest thread on major thirds tuning among jazz guitarists, which features this tribute to yours truly.
"I respect the FACT you understand the frailties of WIKI. Your tolerance for my adversarial style of interpersonal communication is quite refreshing. You have my respect and I am now a fan. Finally, someone who his cool as a cucumber. Bravo!" [15]
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Arbcom! ;) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ArbCom attracts administrators who wish to spend their free hours reading lists of diffs from conflicts, with each side presenting only diffs painting their opponent in a bad light, but who find ANI discussions too short(!).
Thus, past elections have lacked qualified candidates and have offered too many unsuitable candidates.
ArbCom needs encyclopediasts like Casliber ( talk · contribs) and Charles Matthews ( talk · contribs) and Iridescent ( talk · contribs), who have previously served with honor and distinction. I would encourage them and SandyGeorgia ( talk · contribs), Nikkimaria ( talk · contribs), Drmies ( talk · contribs), Reaper Eternal ( talk · contribs), RegentsPark ( talk · contribs), Rjensen ( talk · contribs), EdJohnston ( talk · contribs), Leaky caldron ( talk · contribs), and Carrite ( talk · contribs) to consider running this year.
As respected community leaders, TParis ( talk · contribs), Elen of the Roads ( talk · contribs), Floquenbeam ( talk · contribs), NE Ent ( talk · contribs), Boing! said Zebedee ( talk · contribs), Nick ( talk · contribs), John ( talk · contribs), and 28bytes ( talk · contribs) should consider running.
Administrators Fram ( talk · contribs), Bbb23 ( talk · contribs), and Bwilkins ( talk · contribs) also have backbone. I attribute past disagreements (e.g., blocks) with Fram and Bwilkins partially to my errors and partially to their orneriness---an unfortunate side-effect of blocking scores of nutjobs daily.
(The division into community leaders and writers relies on my faulty memory and snap judgment, and is immaterial to the recruitment process anyhow.)
From this year's ArbCom, Hersfold has already resigned. Risker, AGK, SilkTork, and Kirill Lokshin have accounced that they shall not seek re-election.
This year, I shall look closely at the candidates' records regarding these contentious issues:
For several quality-review projects, the leaders have been attacked for years by sock-puppets of banned users and, alas, often seem to be criticized en masse by a network of administrators (at least some of whom have left a record of sexist remarks).
Many writers who are not administrators have contempt for the Administrator Noticeboard and have lost confidence with the Arbitration Committee, simply because of the failure of administrators evenly to apply Wikipedia's civility and no-personal-attacks policy. The essay Boomerang, which reminds editors not to file complaints unless they want to be held accountable for their own behavior, is not even a guideline (and certainly not a policy).
In last year's Civility Enforcement case, ArbCom announced that it would hear a wide-ranging case on Civility Enforcement, but instead chose to sanction only Malleus Faturoum, even though there was plenty of evidence against others, particularly those attacking Malleus repeatedly. Nobody was sanctioned for conducting campaigns of abuse.
Besides wasting the community's time and ignoring the evidence submitted about uneven enforcement, this action had the appearance that the proceedings were a bread-and-circuses show, while the real decision was made by the committee in private. Indeed, former arbitrator Iridescent correctly predicted the final votes just by knowing the members of the committee!
Administrators and arbitrators should not be so partisan that they ignore evidence of abuse by their friends and allies and solely target their opponents. Administrators and arbitrators should not be so intellectually lazy or partisan that they do not investigate the context of diffs at ANI or ArbCom, and sanction all guilty parties, particularly abusive administrators.
Similar partisanship ocurred in the case banning me. The community set-up Arbcom as the last step in dispute-resolution, and the community-approved policy requires that all parties to a dispute be discussed. There had been no RfC on Ironholds and myself, so as some arbs noted in considering the case, arbcom did not have a remit to have a case. When the case began, Arbcom arbitrarily prevented me from adding users Worm That Turned and Demiurge1000 as parties and barred me from discussing their behavior, while simultaneously welcoming them to continue their two-year long campaign against me. I was banned from participating from the case after noting Demiurge1000's block for dishonesty and for adding diffs that were later cited by arbcom when it desysopped and nearly banned Ironholds. Other editors have noted that the diffs of incivility and personal attacks by me were made in response to prior incivility and personal attacks by administrators, to which arbcom acquiesced. In particular, Salvio guiliano thrice let stand personal attacks against me by user:Kurtis, each of which were more severe than the "honesty or intelligent" remark cited by Arbcom in its decision to ban me. Arbcom needs to stop practicing "uneven enforcement of civility".
ArbCom needs to prioritize justice.
In particular, ArbCom's leaking and (in 2013) publishing personal information of Eric Corbett ( talk · contribs).
Proposal withdrawn, following comments by Iridescent |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
On the other hand, all candidates should have either of the statements
Motivation: In the last election, some previous accounts were posted by an election moderator, after AGK failed to disclose them. |
ArbCom members have complained to WMF director Sue Gardner that they are unable to enforce the existing child protection policy, which has roughly 20 cases yearly.
In banning me, the current ArbCom ruled, in effect, that adult editors are free to contact vulnerable minors off-Wiki, despite parental objections, because such contacts are not criminal. (Only criminal actions are prohibited by the weak child-protection policy.) At the same time, my discussing such contacts was declared to be a tacit accusation of pedophilia. This year's ArbCom had no warrant chillingly to prohibit discussion of behavior that is compatible with the child-protection policy (but which is prohibited by responsible organizations, like the Girl Scouts).
All committees suffer from group polarization, and one hopes that members of this year's Arbcom should recognize several horrible decisions. To reduce the frequency and severity of horrible decisions, committees need persons with backbone and preferably confidence. For example, this year, Worm That Turned
Last year, I mistakenly endorsed Kww because of his independence. It is possible that this year's guide may again mistake independence for courage.
Ks0stm has a year more experience of doing good work as an administrator, mostly quietly but sometimes with good will and humor contributing to dispute resolution. The committee has a lot of work to do, and this is an administrator who is reliable and will not waste time. I trust that all other guides shall join me in supporting Ks0stm.
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2013 candidate:
Ks0stm
|
RegentsPark writes articles, mediates content disputes, and is one of the most helpful persons with resolving issues at ANI. RegentsPark has been invaluable in helping to maintain civility and productive editing on articles related to Pakistan and India, one of the toughest proving grounds for administrators.
In her 2012 guide, SandyGeorgia has a good discussion of RegentsPark's virtues on 2012 Wikipedia controversies.
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2012 candidate:
RegentsPark
|
Richwales is running on two pillars, civility and NPOV. Raising NPOV, which is supported by all, is a distraction, just like in 2012. My 2012 guide explains why his candidacy was inadequate, respectfully. This year I shall be blunter, because Richwales's statement fails to show any greater self-awareness or acknowledgment of the concerns of those who opposed him: His statement ignores
If elected, Richwales could push a schoolboy understanding of civility (focusing on naughty words, rather than on overall behavior) ahead of the other pillars, which concern the encyclopedic aspects of Wikipedia.
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2013 candidate:
Richwales
|
Anthony's early RfAs
had many concerns about "hat collecting" (forging path to power through dispute resolution projects and positions on other projects, rather than writing articles) and inconsistencies. He failed to declare his alternative accounts last election, but was able to remain eligible after a moderator took the initiative to declare some on his behalf. After the last election, he previously announced (as Rschen has confirmed) that he would not run again; recently he reversed himself and declared that he was about to run. There are just too much variation in his performance---most notably his off-hand comment that Eric Corbett ( talk · contribs) was "a net negative to the project", which (at best) served no good purpose and which wasted a lot of time.
My banning case had a similar pattern of wild inconsistency. First, Anthony declared himself to have a conflict because of his simultaneous role as an administrator of Wikipedia's IRC channel. Second, he said he would participate because the case would consider the administrator IRC channel, not the general one. Third, Anthony participated in the case, which did cite (non-administrative) IRC chats by Ironholds, precisely his previously declared conflict of interest. Granted that individually any of these three positions could be considered as plausible, rapidly bouncing from position to position without explanation wasted a lot of time and looked (at best) thoughtless.
It seems to me that AGK would better serve the project by writing some articles and helping to resolve disputes without using his tools, i.e. emulating e.g. Drmies. (Like Richwales, AGK is a much better candidate than some of those running in the last elections, e.g., YOLO SWAG, KWW, Beeblebrox, Panyd, etc.)
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2013 candidate:
AGK
|
The best writers write the best guides.
Other 2013 guides | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
2011 and 2012 Guides
| ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012
2011
|
This guide shall be updated as candidates present themselves and as other guides appear.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![]() | This page contains material that is kept because it is considered
humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
Remember that 10 represents average human ability, so everything above 10 is a (sincere) compliment.
Character | Strength | Dexterity | Constitution | Intelligence | Wisdom | Charisma | Alignment | Class | Level | Race [1] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nuclear Warfare | 12 | 16 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 14 | Lawful good | Cleric? | 7 | Human |
Casliber | 17 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 17 | Lawful good | Paladin | 11 | Human |
Elen of the Roads | 14 | 17 [2] | 15 | 16 | 16 | 16 | Chaotic good | Interspecies diplomat | 8 | Metron |
Newyorkbrad | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 17 | 15 | Lawful good | Arch-mage | 11 | Watcher |
Carcharoth | 18 | 14 | 18 | 16 | 18 | 15 | Chaotic good | Bard, [3] formerly RED | 8 | sheepish Ent wearing Fenris Wolf's clothing |
Worm That Turned | 12 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 16 | Neutral [4] good | Ring bearer [5] | 5 | Hobbit |
Sir Fozzie (Sabbatical) | 14 | 14 | 14 | 15 | 14 | 14 | Lawful good | Indefatigable companion | 8? | WereMuppet |
Guerillero | 18 | 14 | 18 | 15 | 15 | 13 | Lawful good | Ranger | 5 | Bearish man |
Keilana | 14 | 15 | ? | 14 | 15 | 15 | Chaotic good | Sorcerer | Apprentice | Muggle parents |
Richwales | 11 | 12 | ? | 11 | 12 | 12 | Lawful neutral | Cleric? | 4? | Canuck, eh? |
YOLO Swag | 10 | 12 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 12 | Chaotic neutral | Rogue | 3 | Human |
Jclemens | 16 | 10 | 16 | 16 | 10 | 10 | Chaotic Lawful | Mentat | 8 | Vulcan |
Jc37 | 10 [6] | 10 | 17 | 10 | 10 | 15 | Chaotic lawful | bard | 6 | closeted Beserker |
Coren | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 12 | Lawful good | Artificer ( Muninn & Huginn) | 21 | Demigod |
Count Iblis | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | Chaotic neutral | Count Iblis | 2 | Extraterrestrial |
Please comment here on the guide, if you wish. Do not comment on the guide in the above section.
Updated: I may alter or delete sections from the above guide. Therefore, you may wish to quote from this document or provide a permalink diff to this document when commenting. (Alas, I lack the time to provide this service for you.) 11:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Die Lösung | The Solution |
---|---|
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni |
After the uprising of the 17th of June |
I'm long, long gone; while I still very occasionally comment on Wikipedia (generally when someone pings me or something happens to draw something to my notice), these are the sum-total of my mainspace edits in the last six months. I'm to all practical purposes a banned editor, given that any return would draw down a firestorm of nutcases from all sides of the lunatic fringe, which would make beavering away in a quiet corner impossible, while I have no interest in getting involved in the rearranging-of-deckchairs drama side of things. (I see you've managed to get yourself banned in my absence. I'm not even going to try to make sense of this mess, although I'll note in passing that "knickers in a twist" has nothing to do with "a sexist reference to women's underwear"—it's a reference to the baggy shorts worn in rugby league and the effects of their being grabbed and twisted upon the male anatomy, and is an absolutely standard phrase in the north of England.)
I try to avoid commenting publicly on Wikipedia's internal matters, except in a few instances like the infobox case where I was specifically asked, or in a very few cases like Eric Corbett's block or the farce documented at Talk:London in the 1960s, which directly or indirectly relate to something I did when I was active. I know from experience that there's little that's more irritating than characters from the past who have little or no involvement with the present-day Wikipedia turning up to harangue about how they would have done whatever it was you've just done differently back in their day; I have no desire to become another Larry Sanger or Kelly Martin, and I imagine I speak for Elen on that as well.
Even if I were still active on Wikipedia, there's no way I would ever consider running for Arbcom again, and my advice to anyone considering running themselves has always been not to. Through no fault of those involved the current system is irretreivably broken; the vacuum in Wikipedia's governance structure means Arbcom ends up dealing with all kinds of crap it was never set up to handle, and doesn't have either the mechanisms or authority to enforce the decisions it makes. (My proposed solution remains the same—a smaller Arbcom to make judgements only, not policy decisions, a second committee with a completely different membership with the authority to issue a binding and explicitly policy-forming closure to any RFC with more than—say—20 participants, paid staff at the WMF to handle the privacy and legal stuff that currently gets dumped on Arbcom because nobody else wants to do it (if Wikimedia UK alone can afford to pay each of these people a higher wage than a teacher or police officer earns, I'm sure Sue could find some cash down the back of the sofa for a couple of extra part-timers on the legal team), and a change to the Terms of Service by which all editors explicitly agree to abide by decisions of the two committees. This has no chance whatsoever of ever happening.)
While my saying this will make Eric choke on his cornflakes, if you're looking at encouraging former Arbs to run you could do a lot worse than
Jclemens. I disagree with him on virtually everything, but in my experience he will actually discuss things with other people rather than engaging in "do you know who I am?" posturing or pseudo-intellectual games,* has a consistent position but not so consistent that it becomes dogmatic, and is willing to explain his thoughts to anyone who asks and to entertain the possibility that he may be wrong. If you're looking for someone to pass judgement on people, I'd take someone who passes harsh judgements but listens to both sides and tries to be fair, over someone who talks like they're everybody's best pal but doesn't have the guts to take action against someone who's genuinely causing a problem.
*Arbcom, ANI and all the rest would all be greatly improved were a rule implemented that any use of Latin when not discussing Ancient Rome or Papal encyclicals be treated as grounds for a non-negotiable 24-hour block. Certain people—you know who you are—seem to take a particular pride in using obscure legal jargon and incomprehensible Latin terms, often to editors who are relatively young or don't have English as their first language. To my mind, this misuse of language to belittle people from other educatonal backgrounds is far more "uncivil" than the occasional "fuck off". See also people who throw
TLAs into conversations with new users and then patronise them for not understanding what them mean. ("Why did you revert my changes?" "WP follows VNT and I am a SME and used AWB to BRD, but CCC so you may want to get a 3O before taking it to ANEW. If you breach 3RR I will take you to ANI.")
As a more general musing on Arbcom, I think it would be healthy for all concerned were NYB, Roger Davies and Risker to take at least a year off. If the system is really so broken that it will fall apart without three specific people to hold it together, then it's hopelessly broken and it's better that it be allowed to fail quickly; if it's robust enough to function without them, then it's probably healthy to get by without them for a while as there's a risk of them drifting into "founding father" status where people start to feel uncomfortable questioning their judgement even if they say something that's clearly wrong (cf Jimmy Wales).
In answer both to your comments about abusive administrators and to Carcharoth's question on my talkpage, I don't believe "abusive admins" as such are the problem, but I believe they're a symptom of a structural flaw in the current Wikipedia model. Wikipedia's systemic problems stem much more from the fact that people can engage in abusive behaviours if they have a group of friends to protect them, and that some people have come to regard themselves as indispensable and feel that " If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" parses as "do whatever the hell you feel like provided someone's got your back". Certainly a lot of these people are admins, but that's because a lot of people who've been on Wikipedia for long enough to become part of the furniture are admins, not because admins are inherently worse than non-admins. Some of the most egregious examples (the endless block-unblock-reblock cycle around civility, the atrocious conduct on both sides regarding infoboxes, the constant stream of low-level abuse people who edit Indian articles put up with, WP:QAI's shenanigans at Featured Articles, the disturbing number of people who think that the higher their ranking on WBFAN the more right they have to ignore even fundamental core policies, and many many more) either don't involve admins or don't involve admins acting in their admin capacity, but can be traced back to someone or other having an "I have so many friends, nobody will ever take any action against me" mindset. If Wikipedia had a functioning policy-making process an awful lot of this could be avoided (see two paragraphs up); I doubt (for instance) that Eric would object to Wikipedia having a formal "no swearing unless it's demonstrably necessary" rule provided it was unambiguous and applied evenly. I lost my temper at Worm over Eric's block not necause it was necessarily wrong, but because it looked at the time to be clearly uneven—at the time, the block notification in full read "Enough is enough. I'm changing this to indef. Every single edit since you've been blocked yesterday has been unacceptable. I will be blocking this talk page and moving this conversation to the administrators noticeboard to discuss further.", which is less explanation than is given to an IP blocked for posting penis-enlargement spam. (As I'm sure even Eric would concur, there is a legitimate argument to be made for banning him from Wikipedia, but "Enough is enough, you're banned forever" is certainly not it.)
On "disclosure of prevous accounts", cut some slack provided there's no intention to deceive. A lot of people with easily mis-spelled usernames register a lot of doppelganger accounts to prevent confusion (from someone else innocently choosing a similar name), but won't necessarily keep a list. You presumably wouldn't want to be treated as some kind of crazed sockmaster just because you happened to register User:Keifer Wolfwitz in 2007 to prevent anyone else using it. – iridescent 10:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I was quite surprised to see that you have me listed as support in your guide...not sure why, I just wasn't really expecting it. I'm quite honored and thank you for your kind words. =) Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 23:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Harold Meyerson just published an article on The March on Washington and the Socialist Party. Perhaps it could be added to as an external link to Tom Kahn#External_links?
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
@ Dr. Blofeld: or @ Hyacinth:
Please add the above image to new standard tuning and please cite my music in New standard tuning#External_links:
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)Thanks!
Best regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ Dr. Blofeld: Would somebody please add Dr. Keith Bromley's chord-guide to major thirds tuning as an Major thirds tuning#External_links?
and his perfect-fourths guide to {{}} all-fourths tuning#external_links:
My discussions at the jazz-guitar forum may interest you. In particular, my claim that tunings effect the sound of individual notes received no support (because most guitarists mute sympathetically resonating strings). Thanks again! Best regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
|
@ Ceoil: and @ Dr. Blofeld: [16]. In this video, Ginger Baker does not sound like Buddy Rich about to throw somebody under the bus. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Banned user maintaining ArbCom election guide. Thank you.
equazcion
→ 23:21, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)
Administrator Pedro ( talk · contribs) repeated his accusation that I am a returned user, which he notes he has been making for years. Since ArbCom and its clerks did not have the decency to act on my complaints about the years of false accusations at the ArbCom case, would any administrator with integrity now enforce WP:NPA? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is considering a request for clarification which involves you. [17] Please act accordingly.— John Cline ( talk) 10:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The banning policy says:
Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban. An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal in accordance with the provisions below.
Any other edit to the talkpage is unequivocally a violation of the ban, I have consequently revoked your talkpage access. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kiefer, this is a courtesy message to inform you the clarification request regarding you has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Belated happy christmas and best for the new year |
![]() |
Wishing you all the best for 2014, dont hurry back though man is my advice. You might like this, [18] or not. But you have certainly softened me to many bands I might not have given a toss about before, so tks for those links. Ceoil ( talk) 23:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC) |
Kiefer, I assure you I have not watched that movie. :) I can't stand (most) Disney stuff, and I use "Disney" as a generic term which I won't, at this time, define any further. I will cop to having taken the girls to see Frozen and That Movie About the Girl with the Really Long Hair Locked in the Tower (that last one in 3D, even--kind of cool!), but that's in part to fulfill a marital obligation. Hope you and yours are well, and I hope that ArbCom won't slap me on the wrist for this message. Respond in Dutch smoke signals: I'll be looking toward Scandinavia during the Superb owl halftime show. Drmies ( talk) 16:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!
It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:
Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (
Ocaasi)
19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User:Demiurge1000
"Consistent with the Terms of Use, this user has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing Wikimedia sites.
Please address any questions to legal@wikimedia.org."
@ Kiefer.Wolfowitz: can you access your talk page and reply? I hope you're well. Az x2 20:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Special Lucia celebration for you: coffee and buns from festively arrayed Bishzilla Lucia! ['Zilla twirls to display her becoming Luciakrona in the round.] bishzilla ROARR!! 15:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC).
I copied your red warning, did you know? Look for "arbitration" on my talk, just above "Snowballs in Hell", -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, that was a while ago, but didn't change. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
10 July |
It took only 300 years to restore her good name. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |
wild garlic |
---|
On this day in 1742, He was despised was performed for the first time, and when I wrote it in 2012, I didn't only think of Jesus. Andreas Scholl sang that for us, - you are invited to a Baroque stroll. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
979-0-9016791-7-7. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 8#979-0-9016791-7-7 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
18:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)